Many digital health entrepreneurs complain that Epic’s dominant position within hospitals, coupled with its closed system which shuts out any third-party cooperation, harms their ability to progress. I have previously raised the issue, so has my colleague David Shaywitz.

It is startling that entrepreneurs at the forefront of innovation should then rank Epic as a company they’d wish as their own, along with Google. Judy envy?

Entrepreneurs are not alone in this dichotomy. Hospital executives are not thrilled with Epic, yet they shell out big bucks to buy its system. What’s wrong with this picture? At a conference recently organized by HealthTech Capital, the CEO of the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center Mark Laret offered an explanation, stating that "Epic is not successful because it's so good, but because others are so bad."

Another piece of conflicting information: HIStalk, which chronicles the inside world of health IT, recently asked its readers "which company's products are the most innovative?" Out of 458, 37% voted for Epic, 29% for Cerner, and 21.6% for Allscripts.

There’s no doubt that Epic has so far executed a brilliant strategy. Its biggest advantage is a single, integrated patient database. Watch Allscripts' travails as it integrates with Eclipsys--despite its efforts at being “open” by allowing third-party developers to build applications on its platform. As a result, it has fallen behind, as Epic forges ahead. On the other hand, Cerner hasn’t made inroads in the doctor market with an EHR, but has smartly avoided an acquisition.

Entrepreneurs, be careful what you covet.

Here's the InterWest Partners survey:

I initiated regular coverage of the biotech industry at Forbes, and wrote many of the early stories on genomics, personalized medicine, and the automation of drug making. I was also the editor of Forbes's Middle East edition. In between, I helped my father, a nephrologist, f...